Malibu ECO Math: $3000 - 3 Cubic Feet = 3MPG; GM Works To Improve eAssist Technology

[AMERICA 123]

Awfully weak Ed.

Real simple - and they even biased the number in several ways against themselves.


Seriously, if Ford and Farley were writing it - it would show as 20 -35 % 'somehow'.

You know, something like 'fleet buyers in the last 10 days of March 2012' and that kind of ****.

Denominators taken from GM's December sales release. Includes any MYR. vehicle sold in CYR. 2012 ie any if applicable 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 MYR product sold.

Numerators taken from hybrid cars .coooom - may not be accurate and if so , more likely to be low.


So....

One set of calculations for eAssist take rates are then -

LaCrosse 12,010 / 58,474 = 20.54 %

Regal 2,564 / 24,616 = 10.42 %

2013 Malibu Eco / 2011, 2012, 2013 Malibu in CYR. 2012 = 16,664 / 210,951 = 7.90 %

Take out the 2011 ( and earlier - if applicable ) Malibus and you'll break @ least 8.5 / 9.0 %.



Once again we can laugh our asses off at the spin doc assertion that pulling the 2013 Malibu ECO forward was anything less than a great move.


And for the non spin doc types who also don't think so - look how 'weak' Malibu would have been without it.


See, there is so much tord, foyota - bankster crap in the air - it's hard to see the real numbers and implications.


If they can package the battery outta' the trunk area - or just make the whole thing larger then a no brainer worth looking at is - make it the base PT which will go nicely with some of the things coming a little later.


*********


And another thing.

Can't remember the terms nor any of the details including if produced and sold but ....what the hell is that GM 'micro' 'eAssist' 'like' system called ( not the older PU flywheel system ) intended for smaller products in developing markets ?????

Anyway, that and this eAssist and variations perhaps...... are such a smarter use of starter motor and alternator materials including rare earth - they could / and or perhaps should be standard thru out the industry on any ICE that would normally include a starter and alternator of some kind - including diesels, hydraulic hybrids etc etc.

[BlackGTP]

[QUOTE=motorman;2642386]

I was completely underwhelmed with the current gen eAssist. Try the math: if you average 15,000 miles/year, you'd save roughly 53 gallons of gas if you got 4mpg better. At $4/g that's $212/yr. Only 14 years to reach a break-even point. My biggest surprise is that the 8% take rate is as high as it is.



GM is building these cars not to save the buyer money on fuel costs but to allow GM to sell more pickups and suburbans where the profit is to be made.

8% take rate is because car purchases are based on emotion. Another way of looking at it is the BMW 3 Series vs the Chevy Cruze. Both are similar sized and the Cruze will get you anywhere the BMW will. Yet at twice the cost tons of people still buy the 3 Series. Makes no sense. But then you put emotions in (people's desire for prestige, 0-60 times, etc) then the BMW makes sense. I don't think there is any difference in buying a Volt, Malibu ECO, Prius, etc - emotions are just as big of a part of the purchase.

[Evo69]

Meh. The Malibu ECO according to GMI's own ne_one and Youtube's mpgomatic can get 41 to 42mpg HWY... good enough for me.

[mchicha]

I wish GM would drop this half-assed hybrid approach and just come out with an Epsilon II car using the Voltec drivetrain. The ECO models aren't getting the job done. We'll have to wait and see how the Fusion Energi performs in the market, that might light a fire under GM to change their approach.

GM has a history of half assed approach which they keep on improving until finally making other competing technologies look like a joke.

• Take pushrod technology
• MRC technology
• Onstar

etc..
This technology will come of age, and when it does, others will wish they tried. They are probably patenting the heavens out of it now.

[44 mpg by 2010]

2013 Chevrolet Malibu eAssist 4 Cylinder, 2.4 Liter, Automatic (S6) Average User MPG: 22.9 for a sample of 4. The best case is 34 mpg @ 70% highway.

That is against an EPA rating of 25 city 37 hiway 29 combined.

Personally, I would require a MINIMUM 25~30% increase in DELIVERED average fuel economy to be worth of anything close to a $3k premium. Of course that's me.

[steve333]

Wouldn't it be nice if GM could get it right the first time?
If they really need someone to tell them than it's time to replace the talent (or lack thereof)

[1487]

What are you comparing the milage to? If you are comparing it to the EPA expected milage for the non-ECO Regal, maybe the EPA expected milage for the non-ECO is overstated as well for the way you drive.

i owned the normal regal. I'm getting about 1-2mpg better than I did in that car. Both cars mileage is overstated, but thats a common issue in terms of city driving in my experience. my issue is that I'm not seeing any real gap between the E-assist regal and standard car. For reference I used to get about 14-15mpg in a Saturn Aura and i'm in the 16-18 range now with the regal.

GM has a history of half assed approach which they keep on improving until finally making other competing technologies look like a joke.

• Take pushrod technology
• MRC technology
• Onstar

etc..
This technology will come of age, and when it does, others will wish they tried. They are probably patenting the heavens out of it now.

I have no doubt that the technology, in combination with smaller, more efficient engines and some tweaks will pay dividends in the future. One issue is that the battery really only does work when you are stopped with your foot on the brake. It really doesnt help out when the car is actually driving for the most part. While its great to save gas when idled at a light, such savings really don't show up at the gas pump. On the hwy, the taller gearing and low resistance tires actually pay dividends. Getting 30mpg in the regular regal was best case scenario but I actually got 37 or 38 on a trip with the E-assist. Unfortunately, 90% of my driving isnt on the interstate.

[firefox]

Note: Chevrolet currently has a $500 bonus incentive on the two Malibu ECO models. In December, this bonus was $1000.

Note: Perhaps the above article should have pointed out that the 1SA ECO is better compared to the base LT model. The author seems to be conveying the opinion of the dealer based on the consumers selection, thus he does have a point.

LS MSRP from $22,805†
1LT MSRP from $23,995†
Eco 1SA MSRP from $25,795†
Eco 2SA MSRP from $27,405†
2LT MSRP from $25,700†
3LT MSRP from $27,410†
1LTZ MSRP from $28,175†
2LTZ MSRP from $30,510†

Way too many model need to have about half that many models.

LS, LT, LTZ and ECO. Maby 2 ECO models. Tha should be more than enough choices. They also need to make bigger improvements in the CEO gas mileage.

[70AARCUDA]

GM has their head up their anal orifice.

They need to apply the same ECO (nee' HFE) drive-train engineering technology to the Malibu as the Cruze has and get the MPG numbers UP to where the car is competitive with the imports!

[Dr. Show-Me]

So are you saying that 90% of your driving is city driving, giving you 16-18, and interstate driving is 37-38? What is your combined mpg average?

What is the improved eAssist technology? Does it include a larger battery and stronger electric motor that would actually drive the car at some reasonable speed?
To me, GM should be using their 10-mile battery with a 100 hp electric motor in conjunction with say a 1.2 L 4 cylinder, having a combined 220 hp and able to get 60 mpg at steady highway speeds. Any thoughts on this?

[Zydzik]

The E-Assist package must be more robust

Some suggestions
1.)Start-Stop tech must be added as std. on all E-assist.
2.)Lightweight materials (Seats and possibly some fiberglass/plastic(Saturn Dent resistant) panels doors bumbers etc.
3.)Active grille shutters (A la Chevy Cruze Eco)
4.)Special earth-tone colors so that it is known as the E-assist
5.)Use recycled materials: Seats/floor mats/recycled synthetic motor oil
6.)Use LED's where ever then can highlight the efficiency bonus.

The above suggestions can take this to the next level and make a 3,000 option into a unique model that is seperated from the generic run of the mill sedans.

Much like Whole Foods strategy this could be the new health foods craze with autos.

Less expensive then a hybrid but also very eco sound that customers will eat up have a conversation piece about their car and be proud of.

[BlackGTP]

i owned the normal regal. I'm getting about 1-2mpg better than I did in that car. Both cars mileage is overstated, but thats a common issue in terms of city driving in my experience. my issue is that I'm not seeing any real gap between the E-assist regal and standard car. For reference I used to get about 14-15mpg in a Saturn Aura and i'm in the 16-18 range now with the regal.

Interesting - I'd expect to see a better result from the E-assist with all the city driving you do.

Wow - I have an '08 Malibu LTZ with the V6 and when I'm driving around town I seem to get the 16-18 (75% of my driving is highway). I'm assuming you have the 4 cylinder....

[HermPerez]

You guys would not want a Malibu that got the same economy as a Prius:

1. Prius is slower

2. wheel alignment on a Prius has been adjusted to reduce drag, at the expense of effortless tracking on the hwy

3. the Prius has its aural properties adjusted to discourage aggressive driving.

4. some people say the looks have been adjusted for the same reason


eAssist cost about $1800 once you strip off the other stuff they bundle with it.. you can see this in the Canadian Buick website, $1800 in loonies

[EcoBustier69]

Malibu eAssist should only come with 1.8/2.0t and 8 spd or gasp (cvt). 8spd preferred no doubt.

And I'm sorry but that back seat sucks. It was a big plus for the 2012 Malibu that we have and now this is an area of liability for 2013. I can seat three small adults in the 2012 comfortably but not even close on the 13...the leg room, head room with sunroof, and hip room are all lacking.

[Evo69]

Malibu eAssist should only come with 1.8/2.0t and 8 spd or gasp (cvt). 8spd preferred no doubt.

And I'm sorry but that back seat sucks. It was a big plus for the 2012 Malibu that we have and now this is an area of liability for 2013. I can seat three small adults in the 2012 comfortably but not even close on the 13...the leg room, head room with sunroof, and hip room are all lacking.

You cant fit three small adults in the back of the 13 Malibu comfortably? Whooaa there! From what I have seen from three Youtube clips of average sized males (5' 8" 5 9") having scads of knee and headroom, not to mention the new Malibu is wider than the previous model. Anyway GM is going to steal some more inches in the back seat with the quick refresh later this year.

While I do acknowledge the smaller rear seat leg room of the 13 Malibu, too many people are behaving like its a sentence of cruel and unusual punishment back there when its simply not the case.